On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:00:49PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Commit 991ea75c (drm: use workqueue instead of slow-work), which made
> drm to use wq instead of slow-work, didn't account for the return
> value difference between delayed_slow_work_enqueue() and
> queue_delayed_work(). The former retur
Commit 991ea75c (drm: use workqueue instead of slow-work), which made
drm to use wq instead of slow-work, didn't account for the return
value difference between delayed_slow_work_enqueue() and
queue_delayed_work(). The former returns 0 on success and -errno on
failures while the latter never fails
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:00:49PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Commit 991ea75c (drm: use workqueue instead of slow-work), which made
> drm to use wq instead of slow-work, didn't account for the return
> value difference between delayed_slow_work_enqueue() and
> queue_delayed_work(). The former retur
Commit 991ea75c (drm: use workqueue instead of slow-work), which made
drm to use wq instead of slow-work, didn't account for the return
value difference between delayed_slow_work_enqueue() and
queue_delayed_work(). The former returns 0 on success and -errno on
failures while the latter never fails
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:00:49PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Commit 991ea75c (drm: use workqueue instead of slow-work), which made
> drm to use wq instead of slow-work, didn't account for the return
> value difference between delayed_slow_work_enqueue() and
> queue_delayed_work(). The former retur
Commit 991ea75c (drm: use workqueue instead of slow-work), which made
drm to use wq instead of slow-work, didn't account for the return
value difference between delayed_slow_work_enqueue() and
queue_delayed_work(). The former returns 0 on success and -errno on
failures while the latter never fails
